My first SCSI-based PC was a 286 with a 8-bit seagate controller and a 54 MEG Quantum drive recovered from my old Atari 500 "sidecar".
You youngsters haven't lived till you've written a database application in ABasic for a 4.77 Mhz 8088 with one floppy drive! Or, how about using disasembler to decode the in-BIOS screen-print routing and reassemble a new one to bypass it with PC-DOS 2.0 debug! Boy, I remember fondly the day when my employer finally agreed to buy that HUGE 5MB full-height hard drive and bumped the memory from 64K to 256K. I thought I would never run out of space! Or, reaching a little further back, scraped a BASIC program off of a failing audio tape drive that served as the permanent memory for an old TRS-80. Or, how about that unfortunate incident of dropping that whole stack of punch cards that contained that precious Fortran code... oh misery...
And don't forget walking to school every day... through the snow... up hill both ways... man I'm starting to feel old... "Somebody, send in more coffee!!";>
Acutually, I am one, but of a differect stripe than most. I'm sort of a PragmatiLiberoConservatary Environmentalist.;>
I like to see both sides (or all fifteen, for that matter) of an issue. I then pull out the best pieces that have the most potential for producing results. I have found that most Liberals and Conservatives (at least as generally defined in the US) want the same results on most issues. They mostly disagree on the methodology.
In the popular movements for both sides, the strongest viewpoint is usually the one that is paid for by the highest bidder. The guilty party behind the cracked methodologies is sometimes the same entity for both sides. The usual results, if either one is followed is that that entity winds up with more money, power, or both. As it is with most issues, the common citizen (those who don't have time to follow the details of a particular issue) will follow the loud voices that mostly line up with their normal viewpoint, ie: Democrat/Republican, etc... They generaly take sides on an issue in ignorance, even if it is the right one.
Asking for more than what will do is a good methodology. In the realm of politics and public opinion, it is almost the only way to get things done. Asking for it with misleading or false data is simply fraud. FUDding things causes overreaction and oppression. It puts undue power into the government's hands. The wild-eyed greens need to keep this in mind.
A good example of this is the 9-11 delemma. Although I generally lean with the Republicans, the steps taken against the civil rights of our citizens in the name of protection has gone way too far. This was caused by FUD. Even if I trust the current occupants of government with this power, I DO NOT TRUST THOSE WHO MAY FOLLOW!
Overreacting or overreporting is the height of irresponsibility in a free society. Although I will fight for their right to speak, I will use truth and common sense persuasion to defeat those who lie or exagurate to get their way.
I've put together a business to do just this, building industry "associations" to leverage a small amount per desktop into a large overall development organization to push through global and industry specific apps. For example: One medium bank with 500 desktops spends $500 per PC per year for licensing (not just to MS.) That translates to $250,000 per year (conservatively.)
If they temporarily spent $10 extra per month per desktop, ($120 per year per desktop or $60,000 total annual), they could join a group effort to move from the proprietery world to the open source world. $60,000 is not a lot for them. Link together 100 banks of this size and you've got $6,000,000 annually to build a common set of applications that can be customized at will. The annual cost per PC ($120) is far less than the estimated $500 per PC per year cost for the various proprietery licenses. To top it off, once the goals are reached (within two years) the cost can drop to a $5 per PC cost for support or updates in Federal requirements, or $0 if they so choose. The annual cost savings in license fees would be $250,000 or $220,000 if the optional $5 per PC per month support is kept.
If you add in multiple industry associations, common goals, such as directory based desktop/server management and security or grid-based back end processing, can be attained in a short period of time.
I remember reading recently (within the last year) that a naturally occuring bacteria has been found along roadsides that actually break down and digest the rubber debri from tires. Again, these were NATURALLY occurring organisms, not GMOs. The lack of rubber debri buildup had puzzled scientists for years until this discovery.
You've got to remember the second law of thermodynamics: all things move from order to disorder (at least I think it was the second law...:) ). Nature has a way of breaking down just about everything, even our pollution! It may take time, and yes, we can "overproduce" polution, overwhelming the natural process. We simply need to pace production to meet measured, natural remediation. Sometimes, we need to give it a helping hand to make things better (our hand in defying that same "second law" that we are relying on.) Sometimes relying on nature and its cycle is not wise because the presence of certain chemicals in the environment, even if they do get broken down quickly, could cause health problems.
Another thought... When one large volcano erupts once, and we're talking a big blast here, not your typical "I think the mountain god is hungry" type of rumble, Chloro Flouro Carbons (however you spell it) and other polution (typically only linked with modern industrial pollution) are pumped into the environment in volumes in excess of ALL modern pollution over its entire history. Yea, the ash drops the temperature/raises the temperature, causes storms and other hellish environmental catastrophies, but it passes. The cycle catches up, sun goes up, sun goes down.
I'm adamantly FOR environmental responsibility. I am also for a LEARNED response to otherwise fear inciting "discoveries". Think it out. Learn the process. Compare with past evidences. THEN make policy. If something comes up that seems to contradict the policy, follow the same procedures and if the policy is wrong, change it.
Pure environmentalists are great people. We would lack the necessary conscience to take proper care of our environment without them. They are, however, oversensative to their ideals and, so, should not be running the policy. Just like RMS should not be "running" the open source movement. He is a great voice in the frey. Without him, we would not have gotten as far as we have, nor will we get were we need to be without his voice and others like his. The edgyness of his idealism, however, would drive too many people from the cause if he were "in charge". He's a great man in the struggle and his opinion should be listened to and respected. In the same way, environmentalists should be listened to and respected. Just don't give them the keys to the armory! We'd all be dead for stepping on ants!
With an environment that is this old, I would recommend, for both your sake as well as the client's, to look at a full Linux migration. This migration should be looked at from many angles in order to save money.
First, are any of these remote PCs in a common location? If so, a single faster internet connection should be looked at. You could set up a small connection sharing/DSL network at the remote site(s). If enough connection consolidation can be done some money can be saved on a monthly basis. It will also cut down on the number of modems/phone lines to maintain. Even if you switch to a secure VPN over the Internet for each modem, the central computer only needs a single high-speed (DSL, cable modem, T1, etc.) network connection. This alone should save tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per month on phone lines!
Second, port the application to Linux. Linux is a robust platform that will be supported for many years. DOS is not. NT is not. Microsoft is barely even supporting NT at this point. If it is written in C/C++, all the better. It will be a quick conversion. If not, it's worth the effort.
Third, If the client buys into the idea, look at replacing the PCs with newer hardware. I know that in the US (I'm assuming that the.es domain is not) that a decent PC with warranty can be had for less than a MS Windows XP license from Walmart.com. These new PCs will include Linux preloaded. (I recommend the Mandrake Linux loaded PC.)
If he likes the idea, buy just a few PCs at first. Get the programming glitches worked out and the communications tested.
Once the program/new environment is good to go, set up the new server and let some users try it beside their old setup for a week or two. Setup some basic training materials (maybe even a basic training class). Get the users trained on it while the PCs ship out but before rollout. THEN do the cutover.
Your client should be pleased with both the switch as well as the future ability to use the platform for other things. Whether used in text mode or GUI mode, Linux is a powerhouse that is a good investment.
Good luck.
If you need some help, shoot me an email or post it here.
Randy
PS: If you're company is not yet adept at a Linux conversion/rollout. This kind of contract would be great to get your feet wet and grow that side of the business.
Theoretically, at least, the US is not a democracy. We use some limited features of a democracy, such as popular votes, but only in certain instances. The Republic was formed with the concept in mind that the somewhat popularly elected "citizen" legislators in Congress would handle the day-to-day business of governing a limited union being kept accountable by elections.
Originally, neither term limits, nor the election of the executive positions (pre. & vice-pres.), nor the election of judges was considered a part of the public's responsibility. Congress handled electing the president and vice-president itself and all the federal judges were appointed by the president and approved by congress.
Term limits weren't originally considered an issue because most of the founders were like-minded in the concept of "citizen ligislators" only staying in office voluntarily for a few terms so that they could get on with the business of life! The populace was not burdened with the vote for president because the populace was too busy making a living and making the country a success to know enough solid details about any one or two candidates. Having a popular vote simple put too much power in the hands of the press to mass-indoctrinate the populace. The theory is that you should know more about your "neighbor" that you elected to congress. If you couldn't trust him then you shouldn't have elected him in the first place. He REPRESENTS you, thus, we have a representative republic that uses a limited form of democratic devices.
The idea of "making the world safe for democracy" would have been equivalent, in the eyes of the founding fathers, to "opening the world up to the control of mass-hystaria or mass-manipulation". The French revolution was a great example of popular control run amuck. Having popular control leads to fascism, dictatorialism, or any of the other -isms, simply because people need to be busy with life and let a select few run the machinery of government. The populace will eventually pick their heros (someone who can manipulate their mind the best) and they get the opposite of what they want. The French Revolution led to The Reaign of Terror and ended with the Nepoleanic Empire. France has since, thank God, corrected the major imbalance and brought things fairly well back to order.
The fact that we are pushing, in the US, towards a more popular vote for president is quite worrisome to anyone who has studied political history to any depth. The electoral college is the last front of protection we have for both the sovereignty of the various states (read nation of nations) and a government that is guided by the rule of law. Getting rid of it would mean that the election of the executive head of the (currently) most powerful nation on Earth would be subject to whomever had control of the peoples attention (media). Once in control, you could be sure that they would do everything they could to strengthen their control, thus insuring their profits and power. In this scenario, it would take no more than two decades to totally dismantle the effectiveness of our government. We would quickly move from freedom to total and oppressive control. It has happened before. Human nature has not changed over the last 5000 years of recorded history. It will happen again if we let it.
"Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it."
It's typical of the "environmental camp" to skew numbers in the favor of their goals. For that matter, it's pretty much human nature for everyone.
The problem that I see, really, is not overuse, overcrowding, overreporting, or any of the above. What I see is a tendancy to OVERARGUE! We have, at this present time, an unprecedented opportunity (read terminally optimistic here:> ) to change the way things are done for the better. The technology and understanding of the way things work has never been more advanced (though it will get better). We have also never had such an incredible communication media at our disposal. Now, all we need is to stop the bickering long enough to see both sides of the issue.
On the use of desert land for farming: "where's all the water going to come from?"... desalinization of ocean water. "what about the energy it will take to do that desalinization?"... solar power (deserts are great places for this!) "but you can't grow things in sand!"... try again! Start with plains grasses and plenty of chicken manuer (real cheap but potent stuff!), add cattle (of various shapes and sizes...), then start adding crops! Ask any organic farmer, it can be done!!!
Most of the unsolveables like this need to be tackled by the "tinkers", the folks who invent or apply existing technologies to solve problems. Don't say it can't get done." Just come up with an ideal and ask a "tiker" how can we get this done!
Each of us, whether a "liberal environmentalist" or a "radical right conservative" have a place and a purpose. we all feel so strongly about things because that is our particular area of responsibility. Just because we don't agree totally with each other doesn't mean that we have to fight it out. Let's learn that a "Democratic Society" really means neither "mob rule" or "argue till one side is burried". A little argument is OK, but when we stop seeing each other's values and valid concerns, we stop being a civilization and start towards the barbaric conquering of "the other side".
All sides should be scolded! But, on the other hand, all sides should be listened to with great attention and interest. Give a little, take a little, and, occasionally, just let someone else win for a change. When it all comes to a close, we really can trust the "other side" to pull with us. Maybe a little different than we would, but not usually any worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean we can all move to Canada and have a bunch of sickly mouse pets to play with? Oh what joy. ;>
Anonymous Coward wrote:
My first SCSI-based PC was a 286 with a 8-bit seagate controller and a 54 MEG Quantum drive recovered from my old Atari 500 "sidecar".
You youngsters haven't lived till you've written a database application in ABasic for a 4.77 Mhz 8088 with one floppy drive! Or, how about using disasembler to decode the in-BIOS screen-print routing and reassemble a new one to bypass it with PC-DOS 2.0 debug! Boy, I remember fondly the day when my employer finally agreed to buy that HUGE 5MB full-height hard drive and bumped the memory from 64K to 256K. I thought I would never run out of space! Or, reaching a little further back, scraped a BASIC program off of a failing audio tape drive that served as the permanent memory for an old TRS-80. Or, how about that unfortunate incident of dropping that whole stack of punch cards that contained that precious Fortran code... oh misery...
And don't forget walking to school every day... through the snow... up hill both ways... man I'm starting to feel old... "Somebody, send in more coffee!!" ;>
Acutually, I am one, but of a differect stripe than most. I'm sort of a PragmatiLiberoConservatary Environmentalist. ;>
I like to see both sides (or all fifteen, for that matter) of an issue. I then pull out the best pieces that have the most potential for producing results. I have found that most Liberals and Conservatives (at least as generally defined in the US) want the same results on most issues. They mostly disagree on the methodology.
In the popular movements for both sides, the strongest viewpoint is usually the one that is paid for by the highest bidder. The guilty party behind the cracked methodologies is sometimes the same entity for both sides. The usual results, if either one is followed is that that entity winds up with more money, power, or both. As it is with most issues, the common citizen (those who don't have time to follow the details of a particular issue) will follow the loud voices that mostly line up with their normal viewpoint, ie: Democrat/Republican, etc... They generaly take sides on an issue in ignorance, even if it is the right one.
Asking for more than what will do is a good methodology. In the realm of politics and public opinion, it is almost the only way to get things done. Asking for it with misleading or false data is simply fraud. FUDding things causes overreaction and oppression. It puts undue power into the government's hands. The wild-eyed greens need to keep this in mind.
A good example of this is the 9-11 delemma. Although I generally lean with the Republicans, the steps taken against the civil rights of our citizens in the name of protection has gone way too far. This was caused by FUD. Even if I trust the current occupants of government with this power, I DO NOT TRUST THOSE WHO MAY FOLLOW!
Overreacting or overreporting is the height of irresponsibility in a free society. Although I will fight for their right to speak, I will use truth and common sense persuasion to defeat those who lie or exagurate to get their way.
Man, am I getting waaaay too serious or what?!
I've put together a business to do just this, building industry "associations" to leverage a small amount per desktop into a large overall development organization to push through global and industry specific apps. For example: One medium bank with 500 desktops spends $500 per PC per year for licensing (not just to MS.) That translates to $250,000 per year (conservatively.)
If they temporarily spent $10 extra per month per desktop, ($120 per year per desktop or $60,000 total annual), they could join a group effort to move from the proprietery world to the open source world. $60,000 is not a lot for them. Link together 100 banks of this size and you've got $6,000,000 annually to build a common set of applications that can be customized at will. The annual cost per PC ($120) is far less than the estimated $500 per PC per year cost for the various proprietery licenses. To top it off, once the goals are reached (within two years) the cost can drop to a $5 per PC cost for support or updates in Federal requirements, or $0 if they so choose. The annual cost savings in license fees would be $250,000 or $220,000 if the optional $5 per PC per month support is kept.
If you add in multiple industry associations, common goals, such as directory based desktop/server management and security or grid-based back end processing, can be attained in a short period of time.
I remember reading recently (within the last year) that a naturally occuring bacteria has been found along roadsides that actually break down and digest the rubber debri from tires. Again, these were NATURALLY occurring organisms, not GMOs. The lack of rubber debri buildup had puzzled scientists for years until this discovery.
You've got to remember the second law of thermodynamics: all things move from order to disorder (at least I think it was the second law... :) ). Nature has a way of breaking down just about everything, even our pollution! It may take time, and yes, we can "overproduce" polution, overwhelming the natural process. We simply need to pace production to meet measured, natural remediation. Sometimes, we need to give it a helping hand to make things better (our hand in defying that same "second law" that we are relying on.) Sometimes relying on nature and its cycle is not wise because the presence of certain chemicals in the environment, even if they do get broken down quickly, could cause health problems.
Another thought... When one large volcano erupts once, and we're talking a big blast here, not your typical "I think the mountain god is hungry" type of rumble, Chloro Flouro Carbons (however you spell it) and other polution (typically only linked with modern industrial pollution) are pumped into the environment in volumes in excess of ALL modern pollution over its entire history. Yea, the ash drops the temperature/raises the temperature, causes storms and other hellish environmental catastrophies, but it passes. The cycle catches up, sun goes up, sun goes down.
I'm adamantly FOR environmental responsibility. I am also for a LEARNED response to otherwise fear inciting "discoveries". Think it out. Learn the process. Compare with past evidences. THEN make policy. If something comes up that seems to contradict the policy, follow the same procedures and if the policy is wrong, change it.
Pure environmentalists are great people. We would lack the necessary conscience to take proper care of our environment without them. They are, however, oversensative to their ideals and, so, should not be running the policy. Just like RMS should not be "running" the open source movement. He is a great voice in the frey. Without him, we would not have gotten as far as we have, nor will we get were we need to be without his voice and others like his. The edgyness of his idealism, however, would drive too many people from the cause if he were "in charge". He's a great man in the struggle and his opinion should be listened to and respected. In the same way, environmentalists should be listened to and respected. Just don't give them the keys to the armory! We'd all be dead for stepping on ants!
Mr. Bustos,
.es domain is not) that a decent PC with warranty can be had for less than a MS Windows XP license from Walmart.com. These new PCs will include Linux preloaded. (I recommend the Mandrake Linux loaded PC.)
With an environment that is this old, I would recommend, for both your sake as well as the client's, to look at a full Linux migration. This migration should be looked at from many angles in order to save money.
First, are any of these remote PCs in a common location? If so, a single faster internet connection should be looked at. You could set up a small connection sharing/DSL network at the remote site(s). If enough connection consolidation can be done some money can be saved on a monthly basis. It will also cut down on the number of modems/phone lines to maintain. Even if you switch to a secure VPN over the Internet for each modem, the central computer only needs a single high-speed (DSL, cable modem, T1, etc.) network connection. This alone should save tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per month on phone lines!
Second, port the application to Linux. Linux is a robust platform that will be supported for many years. DOS is not. NT is not. Microsoft is barely even supporting NT at this point. If it is written in C/C++, all the better. It will be a quick conversion. If not, it's worth the effort.
Third, If the client buys into the idea, look at replacing the PCs with newer hardware. I know that in the US (I'm assuming that the
If he likes the idea, buy just a few PCs at first. Get the programming glitches worked out and the communications tested.
Once the program/new environment is good to go, set up the new server and let some users try it beside their old setup for a week or two. Setup some basic training materials (maybe even a basic training class). Get the users trained on it while the PCs ship out but before rollout. THEN do the cutover.
Your client should be pleased with both the switch as well as the future ability to use the platform for other things. Whether used in text mode or GUI mode, Linux is a powerhouse that is a good investment.
Good luck.
If you need some help, shoot me an email or post it here.
Randy
PS: If you're company is not yet adept at a Linux conversion/rollout. This kind of contract would be great to get your feet wet and grow that side of the business.
Theoretically, at least, the US is not a democracy. We use some limited features of a democracy, such as popular votes, but only in certain instances. The Republic was formed with the concept in mind that the somewhat popularly elected "citizen" legislators in Congress would handle the day-to-day business of governing a limited union being kept accountable by elections.
Originally, neither term limits, nor the election of the executive positions (pre. & vice-pres.), nor the election of judges was considered a part of the public's responsibility. Congress handled electing the president and vice-president itself and all the federal judges were appointed by the president and approved by congress.
Term limits weren't originally considered an issue because most of the founders were like-minded in the concept of "citizen ligislators" only staying in office voluntarily for a few terms so that they could get on with the business of life!
The populace was not burdened with the vote for president because the populace was too busy making a living and making the country a success to know enough solid details about any one or two candidates. Having a popular vote simple put too much power in the hands of the press to mass-indoctrinate the populace. The theory is that you should know more about your "neighbor" that you elected to congress. If you couldn't trust him then you shouldn't have elected him in the first place. He REPRESENTS you, thus, we have a representative republic that uses a limited form of democratic devices.
The idea of "making the world safe for democracy" would have been equivalent, in the eyes of the founding fathers, to "opening the world up to the control of mass-hystaria or mass-manipulation". The French revolution was a great example of popular control run amuck. Having popular control leads to fascism, dictatorialism, or any of the other -isms, simply because people need to be busy with life and let a select few run the machinery of government. The populace will eventually pick their heros (someone who can manipulate their mind the best) and they get the opposite of what they want. The French Revolution led to The Reaign of Terror and ended with the Nepoleanic Empire. France has since, thank God, corrected the major imbalance and brought things fairly well back to order.
The fact that we are pushing, in the US, towards a more popular vote for president is quite worrisome to anyone who has studied political history to any depth.
The electoral college is the last front of protection we have for both the sovereignty of the various states (read nation of nations) and a government that is guided by the rule of law. Getting rid of it would mean that the election of the executive head of the (currently) most powerful nation on Earth would be subject to whomever had control of the peoples attention (media). Once in control, you could be sure that they would do everything they could to strengthen their control, thus insuring their profits and power. In this scenario, it would take no more than two decades to totally dismantle the effectiveness of our government. We would quickly move from freedom to total and oppressive control. It has happened before. Human nature has not changed over the last 5000 years of recorded history. It will happen again if we let it.
"Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it."
...from the terminally pragmatic camp...
:> ) to change the way things are done for the better. The technology and understanding of the way things work has never been more advanced (though it will get better). We have also never had such an incredible communication media at our disposal. Now, all we need is to stop the bickering long enough to see both sides of the issue.
It's typical of the "environmental camp" to skew numbers in the favor of their goals. For that matter, it's pretty much human nature for everyone.
The problem that I see, really, is not overuse, overcrowding, overreporting, or any of the above. What I see is a tendancy to OVERARGUE! We have, at this present time, an unprecedented opportunity (read terminally optimistic here
On the use of desert land for farming: "where's all the water going to come from?"... desalinization of ocean water. "what about the energy it will take to do that desalinization?"... solar power (deserts are great places for this!) "but you can't grow things in sand!"... try again! Start with plains grasses and plenty of chicken manuer (real cheap but potent stuff!), add cattle (of various shapes and sizes...), then start adding crops! Ask any organic farmer, it can be done!!!
Most of the unsolveables like this need to be tackled by the "tinkers", the folks who invent or apply existing technologies to solve problems. Don't say it can't get done." Just come up with an ideal and ask a "tiker" how can we get this done!
Each of us, whether a "liberal environmentalist" or a "radical right conservative" have a place and a purpose. we all feel so strongly about things because that is our particular area of responsibility. Just because we don't agree totally with each other doesn't mean that we have to fight it out. Let's learn that a "Democratic Society" really means neither "mob rule" or "argue till one side is burried". A little argument is OK, but when we stop seeing each other's values and valid concerns, we stop being a civilization and start towards the barbaric conquering of "the other side".
All sides should be scolded! But, on the other hand, all sides should be listened to with great attention and interest. Give a little, take a little, and, occasionally, just let someone else win for a change. When it all comes to a close, we really can trust the "other side" to pull with us. Maybe a little different than we would, but not usually any worse.
'Nuf said!